UKH

Genuine question: from the outside it looked very sudden but maybe it had been coming for years?

Was it because most Scots now genuinely want independence? Because Labour are not "left wing" enough? Because Labour is perceived as (Islington) English? Because Labour had taken Scotland for granted for too long?

A bit of all the above or something else entirely?

In reply to Postmanpat:
To be honest, if you think it was sudden rather than inevitable then you sound completely out of touch. Possibly as out of touch as I may be with English politics! The polls were right. 56 SNP seats is lower than the more speculative poll based predictions.

No. 45% in a referendum is defeat. 45% in FPTP is a landslide.

Possibly.

>Because Labour is perceived as (Islington) English?
YES. See Johan Lamont's comments when she resigned.

>Because Labour had taken Scotland for granted for too long?
YES, THIS.

SNP have a reputation for competence and representing Scottish interests.
Scottish Labour MPs were seen as lobby fodder and unseen in their constituencies. It's certainly my impression of my former MP who lost with a swing of 40% to the SNP. That might be completely unfair but perception largely determines where the cross on the ballot paper goes

A few other factors.
There are a lots of enthusiastic Yes voters.
There are few enthusiastic No votes.
SNP membership went from 26,000 to 110,000 since the referendum.
Membership rose by 10,000 this April.

That's my perspective and is shared by many non-SNP voters like me.

In reply to Postmanpat:

A bit of some, and bits of other things entirely. Most Scots don't genuinely want independence - but 45% do and they only have one party to vote for - the SNP. It's also not sudden - the SNP got 45% at the last Holyrood election, what was new was they kept the vote this time round at Westminster. And that's where your analysis is lacking - you don't mention the SNP (speaking as someone who does not support their cause) and Labour's failings are all met with an equal and opposite statement of - the SNP have done the opposite and/or exploited Labour's failings. Labour did two big things wrong in Scotland - for years, they have sent all their big guns to Westminster, and the 2nd tier to Holyrood. And they elected Ed Miliband as leader, who simply couldn't communicate up here. And these two things together left poor over-promoted Johann Lamont speaking for Labour in Scotland, at least til October. now they have no-one, and it's difficult to see how they recover.

In reply to elsewhere:


My working assumption was that must have been in the offing for a long time but this begs this question of why Labour, and many commentators, seem to have been taken so off guard (?)
The reason I ask because it is really quite difficult to get a "feeling for the feeling" in Scotland" via the English media. Maybe you find the same in reverse. I find a few friends and family who live in Scotland, and UKC, a much better source of what is really happening!

It sounds like your summary would be that all the factors mentioned were causing growing disillusionment with Labour and the run up the referendum, as opposed to the run up to the election, crystallised them in voters' minds?

In reply to elsewhere:

Being fair to the Westminster Scottish MP's (of any party - I think the SNP guys are about to find out), as someone who has a weekly commute from Aberdeen down to England it's flippin knackering, so I'm not surprised they're a bit invisible to their constituents, all they'll want to do when they get home at the Weekend is catch up on everything around the house they haven't done through the week and have a bit of family time.

In reply to elsewhere:


I wonder whether the best way to counter the nationalists would be for all the other unionist Scottish parties to combine (at least temporarily until the independence question has gone away) into say, The SUP, and so get, presumably, about 55% of the vote and a majority at Holyrood and of Scottish MP's at Westminster. Currently they would have nothing to lose in terms of representation.

In reply to Postmanpat:

its not just a 'Scottish' thing. The Labour message this election was confused and I don't think Ed Miliband came across well whether you were Scottish or not. I think a lot of left leaning and Liberal people UKin England and Wales probably voted Labour, not so much out of heart felt support for Labour, but hoping to keep the Tories out. Well, in Scotland, the SNP would be first choice for that, as to a much greater degree, Labour were a tarnished product, with the taint of 'self-serving, out of touch, corrupt Westminster politicians'.

In reply to cander:
Same down here in Cornwall, we've swung from complete Lib Dem in 2005 to complete Tory representation in 2015. One of the main talking points in the run up to the election here in my local constituency was the visibility of the challenging Tory candidate versus the relatively unseen Lib Dem incumbent.
Naturally this is always an issue with incumbent MPs serving far-flung constituencies, but it still seemed to be the motivating force for much of the swing. (unscientifically gathered evidence from both candidates' Facebook pages and talking to people whilst out at work for local press) Maybe it'll swing back again next time.

In reply to Robert Durran:

That could work, if UK unionism is a bigger issue to all of them than, say, liberalism, conservatism or social democracy.

It would almost certainly finish off Labour in Scotland, and another good chunk of Labour's support would move to supporting the SNP.

For this reason, I would not be at all surprised if the Scottish Conservatives tried it.

In reply to cander:
You may be right but being fair to the MP or sympathy for an MP's circumstances aren't anything I've considered when voting.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The thing I heard from people again and again in former Labour areas was that they didn't think Labour cared about them, stood up for them, or understood them.

This was often accompanied by "you're the only ones who've come to see us today!" or "are none of the others here?"

So, after a desire for independence or more autonomy, I think that was it.

In reply to Robert Durran:
I think an SUP would be electoral suicide.

If I could vote for made up party that I don't really support I might as well vote for a better party that I don't really support. I'd probably switch to SNP.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Goes back further than the referendum. SNP did well in opposition in Scottish Parliament, then as minority govt from 2007 and then as majority govt 2011. No discernable Labour response that I can remember.

In reply to Robert Durran:

One of the complaints I keep hearing about Labour in Scotland is how they stood side-by-side with Tories in the Better Together campaign, Wouldn't this "SUP" just reinforce that perception?

In reply to Postmanpat:
In short? Nicola Sturgeon has charisma, passion, she is trusted and the electorate decided they like her.

Ed Miliband on the other hand has the charisma of a potato, seems driven by others, and nobody would ever trust a politician willing to stab his own brother in the back, and to top it he was never going to be described as likeable.

In reply to cragtaff:


I don't buy this. He got unfairly slaughtered by the press but is a transparently decent person if lacking in"charisma". If his personality was a problem in Scotland I would think it was because he a stereotypical middle class London liberal, not because he is unlikeable. I suspect that was also a problem in England.

In reply to Postmanpat:



It's worth bearing in mind, by the way, that the 55% who didn't vote Yes didn't necessarily unconditionally support the status quo - they just didn't think that complete independence was preferable. It'd be reasonable to assume that there are a significant number of people who'd be in favour of increased devolution but who wouldn't want to go the whole way.


This is an interestingly linked set of questions, actually. You wonder whether it's Labour finally getting their comeuppance for 20 years of chasing the middleground in marginal seats and relying on their traditional heartlands to turn up and vote regardless, or whether it's more about perceived Anglocentricism (or both). Could the same thing happen on a smaller scale if there was a realistic left-wing alternative in Liverpool or East London?


An impression that I've got at third hand is that something the SNP have done really well over the last few years is present themselves as having a coherent and positive vision for a better Scotland rather than just a rag-bag of policies that might make them seem like the lesser of several evils. But I've mostly got that impression from Yes campaigners on here - I'm not sure how true it is that a) they've present themselves that way and b) they've actually got a consistent plan to back it up. It's an appealing idea given the generally grim state of most political discussion in Britain, though.

In reply to cragtaff:

Ed, whilst unimpressive, was of limited concern to people (as far as I can tell).

Jim Murphy, on the other hand, seems to have been a great asset to the SNP.

But I'm pretty sure that the personalities have just reinforced an existing pattern, not caused it.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Nope. Two things will do for the SNP eventually - the question is how close they will get to their ultimate goal before they fall. The first is political gravity. They have been in govt in Scotland for 8 years, and while they like to present an image of competence, the other parties are beginning to amass a pile of ammunition to use against them. Next year may be to early, but if enough hits home they will struggle to hold on to their majority. The 2nd is that the electorate will begin to adjust, and vote accordingly. Tactical anti-SNP voting took place this year, but not in sufficient numbers, or even accurately. Voters simply didn't believe it was possible for the SNP to win, and frequently voted for the wrong person (e.g. Mike Moore who lost his seat finishing 10k behind both SNP and Tories - yet I know people who voted for him in order to stop the SNP).

In reply to Postmanpat:

Surely the main purpose of a party leader / pm is to represent the nation and to communicate to the world what it stands for. Regan succeeded in this irrespective of his intellectual capabilities.

However ridiculous it might seem I suspect the majority of people could not accept Miliband as the representative of their country because he looked and sounded weird. This combined with his politics did not reflect the majority of the population and the final nail in his coffin was that he and Balls and Brown were seen partly responsible for the crash being as bad as it was made worse by their complete denial.

Ed Miliband is undoubtedly genuine, hard working, decent, clever. Unfortunately for him none of these are priorities for a national leader.

In reply to Robert Durran:

That is what they did during the Referendum, and after the group hug was over, they were punished. NOT for holding or expounding their unionist views, but for siding with the Tories whilst doing it.

In reply to skog:
True, the way to move forward(in my view) is to ditch the old guard pick a woman, pick one that has voter appeal, personality,passion,one that will work together with the SNP, Liberal, and Conservative, to genuinly do the best for Scotland.

The SNP have pinched a lot of the Labour's popular policies, rebranded them and wrapped them up in a nice tartan package ,presented them well and they are selling like hot cakes.

Over time Labour might win some trust back with the Scottish voters, and will then be able to push on some small differences that can be branded as a Labour party people will vote for. Maybe 20 years

In reply to Postmanpat:

Whenever I read an engish newspaper and they mention Scottish Labour it's always bad news...
They've lost or
One of their members is in court for corruption, gerrymandering
Corruption
Rigged internal elections
Internal political bickering

I do not recall reading anything positive about Scottish Labour. I don't know if that's the case in the Scottish press and am interested to know, but I wouldn't call that leadership in any shape or form.

In reply to Jim C:

Kez might even be up to it. Maybe. She comes across much better than Murphy, anyway. There's quite a good piece from her in the Record today:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/kezia-dugdale-scotland-snp-not-5...

But I think, before a recovery is possible, there will have to be a period of denial, then turning on each other, then a split or two. It's the Labour way.

In reply to skog:

Keep an eye on Neil Findlay......

In reply to Postmanpat:

The obvious point is that the election took place in a fairly unique atmosphere, given the referendum.

The Nats had 2 options. avoid the evil Westminster elections or embrace them and they did the latter. Lotta Continua. It's no surprise she waited all of 36 hours before demanding Cameron helps her with her Independence project and it shows that Labour and Miliband's rejection of the SNP was the very predictably correct thing to do.

Newly motivated members ensured the pressure was piled on, whilst there was little Labour could do by way of motivation or alternative.

The maths shows a huge swing compared to the last GE but not so compared to the referendum vote, which suggests the Nats were uniquely motivated this time around, like they hadn't been previously.

The surge in Nat support doesn't automatically mean that Labour did the wrong thing and it isn't obvious what the right thing would have been.

In reply to winhill:


Maybe a bit. But it wasn't even such a huge swing from the 2011 Holyrood election results:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/overview/html/scotland.stm

In reply to cragtaff:

Ed Miliband did not stab his brother in the back. He entered the same competition as David, and won. However flawed the rules were, they both had to play by them.

The really daft thing, I think, is that both Milibands are intelligent, competent and principled people who would be an asset to the governing of this country, and yet our (party) political process has meant that we have lost both of them. As we have lost Nick Clegg, Gordon Brown.

In reply to Jim C:


I doubt that is true - if so, it's very, very petty of the electorate. Anyway, what do you mean by siding with the Tories if not by happening to have the same unionist views? There are plenty of fundamental things most political parties agree on.

In reply to mbh:


I don't think it did. They didn't have to resign. Indeed, in Milliband's case, I don't see why he did. Wouldn't it have been better and more honourable for him to acknowledge the loss then start an open process of investigating why the party lost so badly?

Neil

In reply to Robert Durran:


I'm not sure if its true or not, but It was certainly an attack route the SNP used.

In reply to Jim C:

I've heard that from somebody who I think voted Yes and is usually Labour voter.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The locals round my way we're chanting "keep Labour out!". Doesn't really matter who the enemy is as long as they're English!

In reply to elsewhere:


Well it wisna me , I always give the independant a wee ego boost of my vote in what is( was) a labour stronghold

In reply to Jim C:


Indeed. They came over as Tory stooges in the referendum, especially in the way they'd ignored the whole thing until the possibility of defeat dawned upon them. At which point the whole patronising Westminster establishment rushed north like the seventh cavalry, making threats and offering bribes, all of which have turned out to be so much wind and piss. Then the following morning we had Cameron's "well done suckers" speech. Labour were screwed from then on. The Lib-Dems were already dead - they'd supped with the Devil in 2010.

In reply to Andy Long:


I don't think that is true at all. They lost support because of an effective Yes campaign. All the unionist parties were guilty of complacency until the last minute. I don't see how you can call them Tory stooges just because they both argued for the union.

In reply to wbo:

Scottish Labour, have for years, been unable to field anyone with any credibility/ competence. Their candidates have disproportionately been dreadful and I don't know why they can't get anyone better. The English papers were printing a reasonable representation of the truth. It is almost as though Labour didn't want to win the election.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't think you are too far off here, and I agree with your view of Miliband. Much of the Labour support in Scotland is traditional bordering on the tribal; vote for what me Dad voted, and me Dad's Dad...etc. However much of it stemmed from the very strong presence of the trade unions in and around the central belt, Glasgow, Dundee, Fife and to a lesser extent Edinburgh (and these areas comprise the vast bulk of Scotland's population), thus there is a more culturally entrenched left leaning mindset and tradition; think Old Labour. The Scottish Labour vote started to go wrong a few years into Tony Blair's premiership. While many people were of the popular view that Miliband was out of his depth and couldn't be taken seriously, he wasn't as unpopular as one may think due to his socialist leanings. That being said, we are also several generations into the post-industrial era in most of the communities where Labour were strongest. The trade unions don't mean much when the last person who had a job was your Grandad.

However Miliband and Ball's refusal to sit down with the SNP was taken by many up here as a big 'f*ck Scotland'. Appointing Jim Murphy as Scottish leader also did them no favours.

It is likely that some of the many Yes voters who gravitated more to Labour than the SNP wrote off Labour after the involvement of Gordon Brown and Alasdair Darling (both were very well liked and highly respected here, my Dad knew GB quite well) in the Better Together campaign. Lining up with the tories is political suicide in much of Scotland, there is widespread deep hate for them of the sort I would think might be difficult to fathom for anyone not from here (or parts of The North, Liverpool, etc).

BTW, the wipeout of the LibDems in The Highlands is just as stark, if less obviously surprising to anyone outside.

Sent from the last Labour seat in Scotland (probably thanks to lots of tactically voting tories).